News (All) - Page 105 of 164 - Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, LLP

Malafi quoted in Newsday Q&A column “Can I Submit a Claim for Unemployment Benefits?”

Posted: May 9th, 2017

by Carrie Mason-Draffen (carrie.mason-draffen@newsday.com)

DEAR CARRIE: I work for a private security company that provides guards to a school district. As such, there are numerous days off, sometimes more than a week at a time. If I don’t work, I don’t get paid. Since I’m employed by a private company and not the school district, can I submit a claim for unemployment benefits to cover the long breaks? — Breaks Break the Bank

DEAR BREAKS: Unemployment-eligibility questions are some of the toughest to answer because many factors can come into play in a single case. That’s why the standard advice of the state Labor Department is to file and hear what comes back.

Unemployment benefit decisions “are made on a case-by-case basis based on details from both the employee and the employer, and without all the information, DOL can’t definitively determine eligibility for benefits,” a spokesman said.

But if your break is considered a temporary layoff, you might not be eligible for benefits, an employment lawyer said.

“New York State does not permit an employee to collect unemployment benefits for a temporary layoff only,” said Christine Malafi, a partner at Campolo, Middleton & McCormick in Ronkonkoma.

And employers must make the status of the break clear ahead of time, she said.

“To avoid payment of unemployment benefits, there must be an agreement between the employer and the employee, prior to the layoff, that the layoff is for a definite period only,” she said. “Therefore, if the private security company’s handbook or the employee’s employment agreement or written offer letter state that his or her work days follow the school calendar, the break would be considered a temporary layoff only, not eligible for benefits.”

But she stressed that each situation is unique, “and the very specifics of [this employee’s] employment may entitle him or her to benefits.”

Read it on the Newsday website.

Learning to Love Intelligent Machines

Posted: May 5th, 2017

Twenty years after famously losing to Deep Blue, chess champion Garry Kasparov says that it’s time to embrace AI and its liberating potential

By Garry Kasparov
April 14, 2017
The Wall Street Journal

It was my blessing and my curse to be the world chess champion when computers finally reached a world championship level of play. When I resigned the final match game against the IBM supercomputer Deep Blue on May 11, 1997, I became the first world champion to be defeated in a classical match by a machine.

It is no secret that I hate losing, and I did not take it well. But losing to a computer wasn’t as harsh a blow to me as many at the time thought it was for humanity as a whole. The cover of Newsweek called the match “The Brain’s Last Stand.” Those six games in 1997 gave a dark cast to the narrative of “man versus machine” in the digital age, much as the legend of John Henry did for the era of steam and steel.

But it’s possible to draw a very different lesson from my encounter with Deep Blue. Twenty years later, after learning much more about the subject, I am convinced that we must stop seeing intelligent machines as our rivals. Disruptive as they may be, they are not a threat to humankind but a great boon, providing us with endless opportunities to extend our capabilities and improve our lives.

Many of the great early figures in computer science dreamed of creating a machine that could play chess. Alan Turing published the first chess program in 1953. A computer to run it didn’t yet exist, so he flipped through pieces of paper to run his algorithm, a “paper machine” that could actually play a recognizable game of chess.

It took much longer than most early experts thought it would for machines to challenge the best human chess players. But by the early 1980s, it was becoming clear that it was only a matter of time before ever-faster hardware would crunch positions fast enough to do the job. It turned out that a computer did not need to mimic human thought to play like a chess grandmaster.

Deep Blue didn’t think like I did about which move to play any more than a calculator needs a pencil and paper to perform long division. The ingredients are similar—a combination of memory, evaluation and calculation—but while a grandmaster uses experience to focus on the most relevant factors, the machine grinds through every possible move for both sides, going deeper and deeper with each pass.

During my 20 years at the top of the chess world, from 1985 to 2005, chess-playing machines went from laughably weak to the level of the world champion. It was a startling transformation to experience firsthand, and it was impossible not to feel unsettled, even threatened, by their rapid progress.

These are the same sensations that many are feeling today, as intelligent machines advance in field after field. Few people will experience the dramatic, head-to-head competition against a machine that I experienced, of course, but the sensation of being challenged, surpassed and possibly replaced by an automaton, or an invisible algorithm, is becoming a standard part of our society.

Speaking from painful personal experience, I would suggest that this is the wrong frame of reference to approach the issue, and it is having a negative influence when we desperately need more optimism. The “human versus machine” narrative rose to prominence during the industrial revolution, when the steam engine and mechanized automation in agriculture and manufacturing began to appear at large scale. The story line grew more ominous and pervasive during the robotics revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, when more precise and intelligent machines began to encroach on unionized jobs in manufacturing. The information revolution came next, culling millions of jobs from the service and support industries.

Now we have reached the next chapter in the story, when the machines “threaten” the class of people who read and write articles about them. We see headlines every day about how the machines are coming for the lawyers, bankers, doctors and other white-collar professionals. And make no mistake, they are. But this is good news.

Every profession will eventually feel this pressure, and it must, or else it will mean that humanity has ceased to make progress. Waxing nostalgic about jobs lost to technology is little better than complaining that antibiotics put too many gravediggers out of work. The transfer of labor from humans to our inventions is nothing less than the history of civilization. It is inseparable from centuries of rising living standards and improvements in human rights.

What a luxury to sit in a climate-controlled room with access to the sum of human knowledge on a device in your pocket and lament that we don’t work with our hands anymore! There are still plenty of places in the world where people work with their hands all day, and also live without clean water and modern medicine. They are literally dying from a lack of technology.

There is no going back, only forward. We don’t get to pick and choose when technological progress stops or where. People whose jobs are on the chopping block of automation are afraid that the current wave of tech will impoverish them, but they also depend on the next wave of technology to generate the economic growth that is the only way to create sustainable new jobs.

I understand that it is far easier to tell millions of newly redundant workers to “retrain for the information age” or to “join the entrepreneurial economy” than to be one of them or to actually do it. And who can say how quickly all that new training will also become worthless? What professions today can be called “computer proof”?

Many jobs today didn’t even exist 20 years ago, a trend that will continue and accelerate. Mobile app designer, 3-D print engineer, drone pilot, social media manager, genetic counselor—to name just a few of the careers that have appeared in recent years. And while experts will always be in demand, more intelligent machines are continually lowering the bar to creating with new technology.

Compare what a child can do with an iPad in a few minutes to the knowledge and time it took to do basic tasks with a PC just a decade ago. These advances in digital tools mean that less training and retraining are required for those whose jobs are taken by robots. It is a virtuous cycle, freeing us from routine work and empowering us to use new technology productively and creatively.

Machines that replace physical labor have allowed us to focus more on what makes us human: our minds. Intelligent machines will continue that process, taking over the more menial aspects of cognition and elevating our mental lives toward creativity, curiosity, beauty and joy. These are what truly make us human, not any particular activity or skill like swinging a hammer—or even playing chess.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/learning-to-love-intelligent-machines-1492174086

Please register here for a cocktail party, interview, and book signing with Garry Kasparov to benefit the Human Rights Foundation on June 7, hosted by CMM International.

LIBN: “McCormick Named Dean at Suffolk Academy of Law”

Posted: May 4th, 2017

By Adina Genn, Long Island Business News
Patrick McCormick / Photo by Bob Giglione Patrick McCormick will be installed as the twenty-first dean of the Suffolk Academy of Law, the educational branch of the Suffolk County Bar Association, on June 2 at Larkfield in East Northport.

McCormick is a partner and heads the litigation and appeals practice at Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, a law firm headquartered in Ronkonkoma. He has served as associate dean of the Suffolk Academy of Law for two years, and is also on the Suffolk Bar’s board of directors.

At Campolo, McCormick litigates commercial and real estate matters, and advises clients on contract disputes, agreements, corporate and partnership dissolutions, trade secrets, insurance claims, real estate title claims, mortgage foreclosures and leases.

His career also includes a four-year stint as an assistant district attorney in the Bronx, where he prosecuted felonies and appeals and conducted homicide and other investigations. He earned his B.A. at Fordham University and received his law degree from St. John’s University School of Law.

Founded in 1908, the Suffolk County Bar Association’s membership comprises 2,800 lawyers and judges.

McCormick also served on the Academy of Law’s strategic planning and curriculum committees. As associate dean, he coordinated and served as a faculty member for programs presented by the Suffolk Academy of Law.

http://libn.com/2017/05/04/mccormick-named-dean-at-suffolk-academy-of-law/

April 2017 CMM Newsletter: Negotiate Like a Marine… and more

Posted: April 29th, 2017

“Fearless Girl” and “Charging Bull” Square Off

Posted: April 26th, 2017

Tags: intellectual property

Last month, on International Women’s Day, the “Fearless Girl” statue was installed in New York City’s Financial District as a symbol of female empowerment, standing opposite the iconic “Charging Bull” statue that has come to symbolize Wall Street. However, earlier this month, the sculptor who created the “Charging Bull” said “Fearless Girl” violates his copyright and subverts the bull’s meaning.

The “Charging Bull” was created 30 years ago after the stock market crash to convey a positive, optimistic message. The sculptor of the bull, Arturo Di Modica, says that it carries a meaning of “freedom in the world, peace, strength, power and love,” but now, because of the placement of “Fearless Girl,” the bull no longer carries that message.

“Fearless Girl” was created by State Street Global Advisors, who commissioned an artist to cast the four-foot bronze girl specifically to make a statement about women empowerment. The plaque at the feet of “Fearless Girl” reads: “Know the power of women in leadership. SHE makes a difference.” The girl quickly became a global sensation, which generated a campaign to make “Fearless Girl” a permanent fixture.

However, lawyers for Di Modica have accused State Street of conceiving “Fearless Girl” with “Charging Bull” in mind, and of improperly capitalizing on the bull in violation of its copyright. Furthermore, the lawyers also assert that the city violated the sculptor’s rights by issuing permits to allow “Fearless Girl” to stand across the bull without the sculptor’s permission.

The sculptor’s challenge under U.S. Copyright law will remain to be seen. Copyright law protects original, creative works and grants the artist exclusive right to, inter alia, reproduce the work and to prepare derivative works based on the original. Obviously, copying is not at issue, as “Fearless Girl” is not a copy of “Charging Bull.” But the question is whether it is a derivative work. There is not a single component that “Fearless Girl” shares with the bull, yet its placement and dependence on the bull may be an argument utilized by the sculptor’s lawyers. However, State Street may be able to defeat the claim by way of the fair use defense which allows for comment and criticism.

With this mounting dispute, the takeaway is that you must do your homework if your work utilizes works created by others and, if needed, permission should be obtained before you set out to create and publicize your work.

Five Questions To Ask About Your Company’s Cybersecurity Insurance Policy

Posted: April 26th, 2017

Published In: The Suffolk Lawyer

Tags: cybersecurity, insurance

Companies of all shapes and sizes understand the importance of general commercial liability coverage. But, with the unprecedented rise in cyber attacks—particularly against businesses that collect and store the personal, medical, or financial data of their customers—how many companies have invested in the necessary cybersecurity insurance coverage? PwC estimates that cyber insurance premiums will reach $7.5 billion by the end of the decade. However, not all cybersecurity insurance policies are created equal, and companies must evaluate their unique risk profile and pay careful attention to how their insurance carrier defines key terms in their policies.

Cyber attacks resulting in customer data breaches are almost certain to invite litigation and, depending on the context, government regulatory investigation. For publicly-traded companies in particular, data breaches can prompt high-profile and costly shareholder derivative litigation that, regardless of whether the company successfully defends the litigation, is highly disruptive. In one of the most noteworthy cases in recent years, Target Corp. was sued by shareholders over a 2013 cyber attack resulting in one of the largest data breaches ever reported. A federal judge in Minnesota dismissed the litigation in July 2016, but not before the company had reported nearly $300 million in cumulative expenses incurred since the breach, only $90 million of which was covered by Target’s insurance.

So, how do you determine what cybersecurity policy is best for your business? There is any number of factors to consider, but start by asking the following five questions.

What minimum cybersecurity measures must your company implement for the policy to take effect? So-called “minimum required practices” exclusions prevent the insured from recovering on the policy if it is determined that the insured did not implement adequate procedures and risk controls to defend against cyber attack. What constitutes “minimum required practices” can vary significantly between and among policies. Companies should clearly understand the definition of this exclusion in their policy and ensure that they are meeting or exceeding the standard. Companies should consider policies that clearly enumerate the required practices and negotiate that language with members of the company’s IT department who are more likely to understand what minimum required practices are possible given the company’s existing technology infrastructure. Also, consider whether your company is subject to any industry-specific laws or regulations that your carrier could argue would set a floor in terms of cybersecurity best practices. For instance, the New York State Department of Financial Services’ new rule requires certain financial services sector companies to maintain risk-based cybersecurity programs. The failure of a company to follow that rule might be considered by their insurance carrier to be a per se trigger of the policy’s minimum required practices exclusion.

What types of cyber events trigger coverage and when does coverage commence? Some cybersecurity insurance policies do not cover liability sustained from the mere breach of a company’s customer data; rather, coverage applies only if that data is published or otherwise made publicly available. If your policy is triggered only in the event of publication, then also determine whether the identity of the publisher affects your coverage. In Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Sony Corp. of America et al., 651982/2011, New York Supreme Court Judge Jeffrey K. Oing ruled that Sony’s insurance carrier did not have to defend the technology company in lawsuits stemming from the 2011 cyber attack on Sony’s PlayStation network. In that case, the hackers had published the user data online, not Sony, and according to the court the policy required that Sony commit the act of publication. The court ruled that coverage for publication liability could not be extended to publication by third parties, including the perpetrators of the attack. Companies should also consider a retroactivity provision that covers any unknown cyber intrusion or attack that commenced before the policy was signed. In many cases, a cyber attack may have been commenced months or years before it is identified or data is stolen.

What aspects of your company’s technology infrastructure are covered by your policy? Carriers are increasingly excluding coverage for cyber attacks resulting from the loss of a cell phone or laptop, or data theft in which an employee misplaces a thumb drive or other electronic storage device. Companies where employees have remote server access or frequently work outside the office should ensure that its policy defines the origin of the cyber attack or data loss with sufficient breadth to cover all likely eventualities.

Against what types of legal actions is your company insured and how much control will your company have to respond to those actions? In the immediate aftermath of a cyber attack or data breach it is difficult to determine exactly what types of legal liability the company will face in the coming weeks, months, and years. Depending on the gravity of the situation, it is safe to assume that companies will face civil litigation, but will the incident also result in a government investigation or even criminal charges? Do your company’s existing contracts mandate that customer disputes be settled using alternative dispute resolution, such as arbitration or mediation, and will your cybersecurity policy cover those eventualities? Relatedly, does your policy require insurance carrier pre-approval before you take certain actions in defense of cyber-related claims? Time is often of the essence when it comes to cyber attack, so you want to ensure that your policy does not hamstring your company’s ability to respond.

Finally, does the perpetrator or motivation of the cyber attack matter? Even robust cybersecurity insurance policies tend to be geared toward inadvertent data breaches or cyber attacks perpetrated by criminals with financial motivations. Many insurance policies include exclusion clauses for cyber attacks committed by governments or terrorist organizations or with the intent to cause physical harm. Companies, particularly those operating in the energy and infrastructure markets, should consider whether they need protection beyond data-related liability if a cyber attack could result in physical damage or loss of life. Congress passed the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2015 to extend government-backed reinsurance of terrorism coverage. However, the government program is triggered only under a limited set of circumstances.

In 2017, more and more general liability policies will include cybersecurity-related coverage, but in many cases a supplemental and tailored cybersecurity-specific policy is warranted. Companies should evaluate their risks, compare cybersecurity insurance policies, and consult with an expert before purchasing insurance for protection from cyber attacks.

Next Slide, Please: The Use of PowerPoints at Trial

Posted: April 26th, 2017

Published In: The Suffolk Lawyer

By Patrick McCormick

PowerPoint presentations have become a staple of law school classes, business presentations, and educational seminars – so it’s no surprise that they have also made their way into the courtroom. But at what point does a PowerPoint cross the line from helpful to harmful? The Court of Appeals recently addressed this question in People v. Williams, 2017 WL 1216063, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 02588, a criminal case that is still informative in commercial and other civil matters.

People v. Williams stems from a violent encounter in 2009 in which the defendant allegedly broke into the victim’s apartment, shot him, cut him with a knife, and poured bleach over his head. Somehow, the victim survived, and testified at trial that he had been on the phone with his brother when the defendant and others broke into the apartment. The victim’s brother had been driving near the victim’s block around the time of the attack.

At trial, the prosecutor displayed still photos of surveillance footage purportedly showing an SUV driving down the block shortly before the crime occurred. The victim’s brother testified that the SUV in the images “looked like” the vehicle he had been driving that night. He also testified that when driving down the block, he saw a few people on the sidewalk wearing hooded clothing. While he admitted that he did not see the defendant’s face because it was dark outside and snowing, the brother testified that he thought one of these individuals was the defendant, describing him as “the only short person I know.”

Before closing arguments, the trial court advised the jury that they alone were the finders of fact, that the attorneys’ summations were “simply argument[s] submitted for your consideration” and not evidence, and that the jury’s recollection of the evidence presented controlled, no matter what the attorneys said in summation.

During his summation, the prosecutor showed PowerPoint slides containing images of the trial exhibits, including still photos of the surveillance video about which the victim’s brother had testified. The slides were annotated with captions such as “[the victim’s brother’s] truck” and “[the victim’s brother] sees the defendant,” despite the fact that the brother had been unable to definitively identify the truck or the defendant. Defense counsel raised objections throughout, some of which were sustained. The trial court even expressed its own concern, advising the jury at one point to disregard the annotations on the slides and ultimately stopping the PowerPoint presentation in light of the “superimposed words.” The defendant was ultimately convicted of burglary in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (he was acquitted of robbery in the first, second, and third degrees).

Defense counsel moved for a mistrial, and while the trial court said it was “sympathetic” to these arguments, it denied the motion. The Second Department affirmed, finding that neither the PowerPoint presentation nor the prosecutor’s summation had deprived the defendant of a fair trial (123 A.D.3d 1152).

Upholding the order of the Appellate Division, Chief Judge DiFiore wrote for the Court of Appeals that “it is well-settled that attorneys are entitled to broad latitude in commenting on pertinent matters of fact in summation, so long as they limit themselves to relevant matters within the four corners of the evidence” (see People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 109 (1976)). As to the PowerPoint, the Court found “no inherent problem” with its use, even noting “it can be an effective tool,” but cautioned that “the long-standing rules governing the bounds of proper conduct in summation apply equally to a PowerPoint presentation. In other words, if it would be improper to make a particular statement, it would likewise be improper to display it” on a PowerPoint slide. Therefore, if “counsel is going to superimpose commentary to images of trial exhibits, the annotations must, without question, accurately represent the trial evidence.” See People v. Santiago, 22 N.Y.3d 740, 751 (2014).

At trial, while the slides may have misrepresented the trial evidence, “the trial court was very attuned to the annotated slides and, in the exercise of its discretion, ultimately stopped the slideshow and instructed the jury to disregard the slides.” The Court of Appeals also discussed the numerous occasions that the trial court reminded the jury that the prosecutor’s arguments were not evidence, of which the jury was the sole judge. Moreover, the actual exhibits “remained pristine for the jury’s examination.” The Court of Appeals therefore found that the trial court’s “prompt corrective action cured any potential prejudice.”

Incorporating a PowerPoint presentation into your summation at trial may be an effective way to draw the jury’s attention to the evidence that best supports your case. But this case teaches that it’s the evidence that’s key. So keep the focus “within the four corners of the evidence,” and click away.

Patrick McCormick, Esq. is a partner at Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, LLP, a premier law firm in Ronkonkoma and Bridgehampton, where he chairs the Litigation & Appeals practice group. A member of the board of directors of the Suffolk County Bar Association, Patrick is also the incoming dean of the Suffolk Academy of Law.

Secondary Reasons to Protect Your Assets

Posted: April 26th, 2017

By: Martin Glass, Esq. email

Tags: elder law, estate planning

In past articles I’ve discussed some key reasons to try to protect your assets – namely, protection from the cost of estate taxes and long-term care. However, there are other less widespread but nevertheless important events and situations in which you need to try to protect your assets. These include bankruptcy, litigation, and divorce.

Attorneys such as myself look at each of these events and try to figure out how we can minimize the financial damage these events could cause our clients. For example, if you are single, or married for 40+ years, the odds of divorce are pretty slim. But the odds of any of your married children getting divorced may not be so slim.

Keep in mind that no asset protection plan is foolproof. The success depends a great deal on the facts and circumstances surrounding each client. As an extreme example, assume a client is a doctor who performs surgery while intoxicated and seriously maims a patient. If this case gets to a jury, expect a large payout. And don’t expect any sympathy from the injured party attempting to enforce the judgment. Then there is bankruptcy, where the court has tremendous power and where the definition of “bankruptcy estate” is extremely broad. In short, anyone promising you an asset protection plan that is bulletproof and foolproof is just hoping that you’re the fool.

Now, there are limited things that you can do to protect yourself against bankruptcy, and I’ve spoken about divorce in a number of previous articles (and will probably speak about it again in the future). So for now I’d like to focus on possible litigation. But how do you know if you’re a target for litigation and need to engage in some asset protection? There are several ways to answer that question:

First you need to consider whether you are in a line of work that attracts a high degree of litigation. While we all face the possibility of litigation, some professions are more likely to be targeted than others. Naturally, doctors and other professionals are at a higher risk, but so are certain manufacturers or people in construction. Some other targeted areas are people who work in the oil and gas industry or commercial property owners.

A second group of people are those who are just wealthier than average and other people try to take advantage. Once an individual reaches a certain income and/or asset level, they naturally become a target. Obviously, “wealthy” is a relative term, but anyone who has over $1 million in assets and/or $200,000/year in income should consider some level of asset protection to protect their nest egg.

A third group would be any business with assets over $1 million. The owner should have an attorney look at their structure and operations to minimize liability. Too many of these companies are just in the owner’s name or a partnership with just a handshake agreement. While these types of companies may be simpler and easier to run and maintain, they are easily open to litigation. And that litigation can easily flow back to the owner’s and partners’ personal assets.

Both personal assets and businesses can be structured to maximize your protection. This is typically done through correctly titling your personal assets or putting them in various types of trusts. Your business can be structured into a limited liability company (such as a LLC, PLLC or PC) or a corporation to shield various parts of the company and shield your personal assets from the company.

To discuss how to best protect your assets, please contact us.

Negotiating Marine Corps Style

Posted: April 26th, 2017

By: Joe Campolo, Esq. email

Published In: Long Island Business News

Tags: negotiation

It’s always a source of pride and amazement for me how applicable the lessons I learned in the Marine Corps are to so many aspects of civilian life. Indeed, many of the eleven Marine Corps leadership principles lend themselves perfectly to preparing for and engaging in a negotiation, another one of my favorite subjects. Before combat, Marines diligently prepare and train. The same type of persistent preparation is needed for a successful negotiation. Here are a few leadership principles from my experience serving as a U.S. Marine that inform my approach to every negotiation.

Know yourself and seek self-improvement: When entering into a negotiation, be confident in your authority, ability, and strengths. You (should) have prepared long and hard for this moment; don’t be intimated by your opponent’s prestige, title, or other accomplishments. That said, it’s critical to be mindful of how you typically react in uncomfortable or unpleasant situations or to disagreeable comments, so if such a situation arises (and it will), you won’t lose your cool. Anticipate your opponent’s viewpoints, including those that might make your blood boil, and be prepared with reasonable alternatives that can help push the negotiation forward (rather than sitting there steaming).

Be technically and tactically proficient: Marines live on a regimented schedule. This type of constant repetition allows them to be ready at any given moment for combat. A skilled negotiator will thoughtfully prepare and practice leading up to the negotiation. Earn your seat at the table by always learning and improving. Everyone (myself included) needs practice; once you think you know it all, you’re done.

Set the example: Be prompt for the meeting. Better yet, arrive early to give yourself time adjust to the environment and review any documents before you begin. During the negotiation, actively listen to the other person. Often, when it’s our turn to listen, we are instead passing judgment, preparing our response, or even daydreaming, none of which will help you craft a purposeful response when it is your turn to speak. Set the tone for a respectful negotiation by paraphrasing the other side’s viewpoint back to them, which helps you demonstrate empathy, understanding, and respect. Without these, your negotiation will go nowhere.

Keep your Marines informed: It’s essential that you create a transparent bond between you and your client or team with regard to the negotiation process. Transparency builds trust, so be honest with your client and team members. If you’re a real estate broker whose client has asked for an update, don’t dance around the fact that the seller won’t budge from the asking price – when your client finds out the truth (and she will), the trust between you will have taken a major hit.

Seek responsibility and take responsibility for your actions: Negotiators often focus their position too narrowly. Show that you have done your research and are conscious of your opponent’s interests. Following the negotiation, own up to issues you could have handled better, and use that to inform your next negotiation.

The U.S. Marine Corps is all about mission, discipline and dedication. Stay focused and work hard to maximize your chances of success.

Read it in LIBN: http://libn.com/2017/06/05/campolo-negotiating-marine-corps-style/?ep=1